The Official New England Ice Hockey DBoard
Click Here to Visit Our Facebook Page
U15 can be a good option, more opportunities, etc. For example, U15 looking good at Selects. Seven 02 commits (2 from U16 and 5 from U15) and hearing more to come. A lot of commits for a single birth year, more than all but a couple of prep schools from multiple birth years. Next season’s 03 U15 team looking just as strong. 02 commits:
Miami of Ohio
If college teams took and played all their “commits” they would have 45 man rosters.
Commit all you want. If your kid doesn’t grow or their game goes sideways due to typical teenage stuff, it means nothing. A bad injury? offer reneged. Get in trouble? Offer reneged.
Bad grades? Offer reneged. And so on...
Most importantly, the uncommitted kid from Milton wants your kid’s spot? Guess what, because he is better, he gets it and guess what? Offer reneged!
These agreements are as loose as my college girlfriend so settle down PR pushers!
Must burn some people’s butt that some local kids headed to SKS next year, especially the mom who’s been saying for two years that her son is headed there...oh wait, he’s not. He’s playing for his crappy HS due to no offers!
Know a few kids going down there "to play hockey"...one couldn't even crack the line up of a lower end CC school.
Remember...if you have the money to pay to go...they will find a spot for you...they have 4-5 teams.
SKS has 1 team at u15, 16 and 18. All recruits. Nobody sending their kid there unless recruited for one of those teams.
Please define development for me? I think it’s an overused term but do so enlighten me.
Hockey, like anything else should be a positive experience for each participant. Skill and commitment levels are going to vary. To measure the value of the program is very difficult if you think about it. Most programs at the older levels recruit players for a year then they are off to wherever their going. Can that program really claim they were the reason for the kid’s success?
If a kid started off as a C player and ended up as an A player, well that’s develop. Incremental improvement in the game. If the kid was good enough to play on a full season team over a crappy high school team and went from fourth line to second or first line then that is development.
The biggest problem with this debate is everyone thinks the end goal or success is D1 or the pros. Totally wrong way to look at it. Not enough opportunities and way too many kids. Look at development from progress standpoint relative to the player. A kid who is middle of the pack as a PW or Bantam that is committed and consistently improves and is now one of the better kids on a full season or HS or Prep team with the potential to play D3 college is a huge success story for development. If the kid bounced around from team to team well that kid probably is the reason for his own development. If he stuck with the same team and coach and somebody committed to him to help him improve and keep him focused on the game, well regardless of the outcome I would put credit on that coach.
I may be missing one or two but 93 and 95 Kings, 00 and 01 Flames, 01 and 02 Kings, 02 BA, 02 Breakers, 02 Islanders, and 03 Terriers are the few teams/coaches that have consistently developed their players where most kept pace with developing and gave kids an opportunity to keep playing at a higher than normal level. Hats off to those coaches.
Just remember, if a kid stays loving the game and continues to get better regardless of what his endgame is, that is what matters. Ironically the happiest hockey players are the ones that are at the town or lower select league level.
You guys have put a lot of thought into analyzing someone who is only a hockey scout because he calls himself one on twitter. JC sucks. He's terrible. Everyone hates him except for the 2 agents who he works for and the 2 or 3 coaches he constantly pumps on twitter (Keefe. Albie you know the drill). Cox is an idiot.
03 terriers? Really?
I said it because higher level hockey typically brings more pressure and unrealistic expectations by some parents, not all. Less wackos screaming at their Squirt because his kids team lost to the Flames and was going to knock them down in the standings... I was one of them, not to that extent though. Not justifying lower level hockey. My boy plays at the highest level for his age. He developed more once I really learned my role in the process, which is keep it fun and put him in the best situation he chooses be be in.
My statement was general because I do think the innocence of recreational players does bring more smiles and less tears. Cool uniforms vs making the EHF All-Star team. Your point is noted though. My boy is similar to yours. Enjoys the game regardless.